|
|
|
|
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
nk.net...
"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...
"basskisser" wrote in message
On 9 Sep 2004 06:52:53 -0700, (basskisser)
[that's
you]wrote:
"There was NO debt when Bush took over. None, nada, zilch. A
balanced
budget."
In your ignorant mind, THAT is "using the two terms
interchangebly???!!!
OK. Slowly, now. One step at a time. [God, why do I repeatedly do
this?]
Pay attention, now, I'll only do this once.
You (b'asskisser) said, on 9 Sep, "There was NO debt when Bush took
over.
None, nada, zilch. A balanced budget." By these words, I take it
that
you
mean that if you balance the budget, you have no debt, because you
have
not
spent more than you took in. This is all well and good, except that
it
is
wrong. When speaking of a single year budget shortfall, the proper
term
is
"deficit". If there is a Billion in spending, but only 900 Million in
revenue, there is a deficit of 100 Million. If your paycheck this
month
is
$6000, and your household expenses are $6600, there is a deficit this
month
of $600. If there is a budget deficit, the government must then borrow
money
from other sources to make up this deficit, (just as you do - either
from
savings or from a credit card - because at the end of the day (or
year),
the
budget MUST balance, even if they must borrow three or four
hundred-million
in order to effect the balance. This accumulated borrowing over the
years
to cover budget deficits (less any pay offs) comprises the so-called
"national debt".
If you balance your budget, and have not spent more than you took in
in
revenue, you have no deficit, no shortfall. You may well still have
debt,
brought forward from prior years, accumulated from borrowing in order
to
cover prior year deficits. It is entirely possible to have a balanced
budget AND debt. It is, in practical terms, not possible to have a
budget
deficit and NO debt, as moneys to cover the deficit spending must be
brought
into the treasury through borrowing, before the government can cut a
check
on those funds.
So..... (whew!)...... when you said, on 9 Sep, "There was NO debt
when
Bush
took over. None, nada, zilch. A balanced budget.", you were using the
term
"debt" interchangeably with the term "deficit", and doing so
incorrectly.
In point of fact, when W took office there was, I believe, a balanced
budget
in effect for that fiscal year, but substantial national debt
remaining
accumulated from prior fiscal years. There was debt, but no current
deficit.
Jesus you're stupid........
After all of that wind-bag bull****, you are still fundamentally
wrong. If you have debt, the budget isn't balanced. You keep for
getting THAT key word, BALANCED......
Then how could you say Clinton had a balanced budget?
Asslicker is too stupid to realize that all you need is to incorporate debit
service to balance a budget......NOT pay off the entire debt.
He seriously needs help.
LMAO
|